{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-01-23", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT\nJanuary 23, 2008\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nRobert McFarland\nRobb Ratto\nEric Schatmeier (arrived 8:00 p.m.)\nNielsen Tam\nMembers Absent:\nMichael Krueger\nSrikant Subramaniam\nStaff Present:\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\na.\nDecember 19, 2007\nChair Knox White noted that a full quorum was not present to consider the minutes, and that they\nwould be addressed at the next meeting if a quorum was present.\n3.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\n4.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nCommissioner Ratto noted that the Commissioners were invited to attend the grand opening of\nthe downtown parking garage on January 31, 2008, at noon.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were no speakers.\nClose public hearing.\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-01-23", "page": 2, "text": "7.\nNEW BUSINESS\n7A.\nOverview of Car Sharing and Potential Applications in the City of Alameda\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report. He noted that the City of Berkeley has implemented a\nprogram with City CarShare whereby the cars were available exclusively for City employees\nduring the day, and for the general public on evenings and weekends, and that staff is looking at\nwhether a similar arrangement might be desirable for Alameda. He noted that it could play a role\nin the Transportation Systems Management/ Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM)\nPlan. He noted that several for-profit car sharing companies, including Zipcar and U-Haul, have\nbegun offering similar services, in addition to the non-profit City CarShare.\nBryce Nesbitt, City CarShare, noted that the company was a non-profit company that was begun\nfor environmental reasons in 2002, in order to provide alternatives to the exclusive ownership of\na vehicle. He noted that cars were parked at 150 locations throughout the Bay Area, and that the\nmembers were given an access token to enable them to access the cars. They have recently\nexpanded to Fruitvale BART, and are considering adding sites in Alameda. He noted that\ndensity was one factor that enables car sharing to be successful, but was not the exclusive reason.\nHe noted that car sharing worked well in neighborhoods where people would be willing to walk\nseveral blocks to pick up a car. He noted that an example of a neighborhood where car sharing\nwould not work well was Jack London Square, which was quite dense, but people typically drive\nto destinations there. He noted that the sidewalks were not as active in that neighborhood. He\nnoted that Library Gardens in Berkeley, a shared public-private parking garage, worked well.\nThe amount of public parking depended on a computer projection of the parking demand.\nMr. Nesbitt described semi-private fleets, such as the City of Berkeley program, and added that\nthe leased cars were readily available, but must be leased for the entire day or for months at a\ntime. City CarShare could lease a car to an organization for part of the day. He noted that the\ncars would be otherwise available for the rest of the day. The primary demand for car sharing,\nsince it was not used for commuting, was on evenings and weekends. He noted that was ideal for\nCity use. He described the Berkeley model, which had been improved since the advent of online\nreservations, and had been active for two years. The City of Oakland has a similar program, and\nthe cities of Albany and Richmond were considering it as well. He noted that in some instances,\nthe City CarShare served as a person's one car, while for others it could take the place of a\nsecond car. They had noticed a dramatic reduction in the need for parking spaces, and a moderate\nreduction in the amount of driving. Mr. Nesbitt displayed a map, which described where the\nmembers were located.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the cost, Mr. Nesbitt replied that the\nmonthly membership fee was $10 monthly, with an hourly fee of $5 and 40 cents per mile,\nsimilar to a taxi. He noted that some competitors charged $8 or $9 per hour, but that mileage was\nfree. As an environmentally based non-profit, they chose to charge for mileage.\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-01-23", "page": 3, "text": "In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the length of time a car could be\nkept, Mr. Nesbitt replied that it could be kept as long as someone was willing to pay for it. He\nnoted that it was not economical to keep for long periods of time. He noted that cars could be\nkept up to three days, but that back to back reservations could be made.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the kinds of cars that were available,\nMr. Nesbitt replied that they offered both large and small cars, depending on the kind of trip. He\nadded that they had a number of Toyota Prius hybrids, MiniCoopers, and pickup trucks. He\nnoted that by offering a number of vehicle types, that City CarShare enabled members to use\ndifferent types of vehicles depending on their needs for a particular trip.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether a pod had been placed in a purely\nresidential area such as Alameda's East End, Mr. Nesbitt replied that was similar to the North\nBerkeley BART station and El Cerrito BART station. He noted that they planned to move down\nthe Third Street corridor in San Francisco, which was planned to be dense but was currently not\ndense. He noted that generally 40 members were required to support a car.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding contracts, Mr. Nesbitt replied that the\ncontract was month to month, with no further obligation beyond that.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto whether several members wished to use the car\nat the same time, Mr. Nesbitt replied that it was first-come, first-served. If a member's favorite\ncar was not available, they would be able to use their next choice. Generally, one-third of people\nreserve well in advance, one-third the night before, and one-third reserve just before driving. He\nnoted that 10% took the bus to the car, 10% took a train, 7% biked to the car, and that most\npeople walked to the car.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner McFarland about the decision-making process in\nwhere to place cars, Mr. Nesbitt replied that they looked at the displayed map and looked for\nearly adopters, transit lines, and neighborhood characteristics such as walkability.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the integration of car sharing with new\ndevelopments, Mr. Nesbitt replied that they had done just that, and had mixed results with that\nstrategy. They had strong developer interest, some compelled by City ordinance such as in San\nFrancisco and some driven by a desire to add a green feature to the development. He noted that\nthe fact that car sharing was compelled by an ordinance did not mean it was a good location. The\ndevelopers tended to try to make the cars available exclusively for the residents of the\ndevelopment. While that has some cachet, the vehicle was not part of the larger network of\nvehicles, which was an important factor in the success of the network.\nChair Knox White noted that the use of car sharing in senior housing had been brought up at a\nCity Council meeting. Mr. Nesbitt responded that such a location was a good opportunity. He\nnoted that seniors may not want the hassle of maintaining the car, and part of the service\nprovided by City CarShare is to wash and maintain the cars. He believed that would be a good\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-01-23", "page": 4, "text": "match for senior communities, but noted that seniors were often conservative in adopting new\nideas, and that a car was often part of their identity. He suggested that this should be examined\ncarefully, because cars were an emotional component to people's lives, even though it may be\nthe most practical solution. They had a program in St. Paul's Towers, a vibrant senior\ncommunity on the north end of Lake Merritt; the program had met with mixed success in that\nlocation. The hourly rate for City CarShare included gas, maintenance, roadside assistance and\n$1 million of insurance.\nCommissioner Schatmeier arrived at this time.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Ratto regarding the practical meaning of leaving\n\"sufficient gas for the next member,\" Mr. Nesbitt replied that should read a half tank; their\ncompetitors require a quarter tank of gas. He noted that the cost of gas is included in the price,\nand that members have access to a gas card. The cars were unattended, which allowed City\nCarShare to park a single car in a location. They operated 24 hours a day, the car is returned to\nits original location, and if the gas was left below half a tank, the driver would fill the car up on\nthe way back.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner McFarland regarding the maintenance schedule, Mr.\nNesbitt replied that a maintenance crew cleans and checks the cars every two weeks. They often\nservice the cars in place in order to minimize downtime. He noted that cars were retired after\ntwo to three years, depending on the model.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding a cost analysis, Mr. Nesbitt replied that\nhad been performed, although comparing a fully maintained, clean vehicle versus a private car\nowner's vehicle was a complex analysis. He noted that a driver who did not use a vehicle\nfrequently would save money with City CarShare, although heavy users with daily commutes\nshould own their own cars. He noted that they tried to place at least two cars, but not more than\nfive cars, at any location, which they called \"pods.\" He noted that they had also spoken to Bike\nAlameda regarding potential locations.\nNo action was taken.\n7-B. Review and Comment on Proposed Harbor Bay Business Park Esplanade\nDevelopment\nStaff Bergman presented the staff report, and noted that the Planning Department had made the\ndetermination that the project was within the scope of the existing City-approved CEQA\ndocument, and therefore, no additional CEQA was required.\nJoe Ernst, SRM Associates, project developer, described the scope and layout of the proposed\nproject, and displayed an overview of the project on the overhead screen. He described the\nproject amenities, including public seating, the lagoon and the improvement of private access\nroad through the site; he noted that the access road through the project site to the ferry terminal\nwas currently in poor shape. He displayed and described the architectural features of the site. He\nnoted that the project would be designed as a LEED-certified site, and that there would be no\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-01-23", "page": 5, "text": "new grass in the project in order to save water usage. He displayed the circulation diagram,\nwhich showed existing bike paths, proposed AC Transit stops and shuttle stops.\nStaff Bergman noted that there is an awkward sidewalk connection at the northwest corner of the\nintersection of the access road and Bay Edge Road, and that staff had discussed with Mr. Ernst\nthe possibility of improving this. Mr. Ernst responded that they would examine the two-foot\ngrade change with Public Works to see what options were available.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding public parking, Mr. Ernst replied that if\na caf\u00e9 were to be placed there, the public would be able to park there. He noted that they did not\nplan to install gates and fences at the site.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the applicant's request for a variance,\nMr. Ernst replied that technically, a variance would be required, and he hoped it would not be an\nissue. Planning staff requested that they find ways to reduce the number of parking spaces in\norder to promote fewer cars. He noted that when AC Transit discontinued its shuttle to BART,\nthe business park introduced a private shuttle, which had been moved to a larger bus. He added\nthat a second bus may be added because of the growth of the program. Chair Knox White\nsuggested that the developer ensure the business park tenants be made aware of the\ntransportation alternatives to driving. Mr. Ernst replied that was part of their TDM, and added\nthat the Ferry Terminal was a great benefit to the park.\nOpen public hearing.\nThere were no speakers.\nClose public hearing.\nNo action was taken.\n8.\nStaff Communications\nStaff Bergman noted that the Transportation Commission decision regarding bus stops along\nEncinal Avenue between Broadway and High Street had been appealed to City Council and was\nscheduled for February.\nStaff Bergman noted that the City Council requested a report from staff regarding a proposed\nfacility near the Posey Tube between Webster and Mariner Square Drive, and directed staff to\nlook for funding for a Park-and-Ride facility or a transit hub. Staff has developed some\npreliminary designs, but the anticipated funding of $1.3 million was not available. In response to\na question by Chair Knox White, Staff Bergman stated that he believed the cost estimate included\nat least some of the drainage issues on the site that need to be addressed.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-01-23", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Schatmeier expressed concern that that project would delay the running time of\nthe buses, and asked that the design for the project attempt to minimize this extra time. Staff\nBergman responded that staff would work closely with AC Transit on this.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the Estuary Feasibility Study was\nawarded at the City Council meeting, Staff Bergman replied that was correct.\na.\nBroadway/Jackson Project\nStaff Bergman noted that the consultant team was working on the traffic analysis and forecast.\nThe initial review indicated that the use of 6th Street in Oakland as a major arterial corridor\nseemed to be viable. The off-ramp would come down at Webster Street from northbound I-880.\nStaff would provide updates when they were available.\nb.\nUpdate on City Council action regarding Line 63\nStaff Bergman noted that the Line 63 issue was discussed at the January 15 City Council\nmeeting, and that all of the Transportation Commission's recommendations were approved, with\nthe exception of the location of bus stops. City Council directed staff to seek funding to redirect\nLine 63 onto Shoreline from Otis Drive onto Grand and Shoreline.\nCommissioner Ratto expressed strong concern about the need for funding to make these route\nchanges.\nStaff Bergman noted that about $50,000 was available for improvements, but the additional\namount for Shoreline ($112,000) was not yet available.\nChair Knox White requested that staff maintain an item on the agenda under Staff\nCommunications to follow up on this item.\nc.\nUpdate on parking restrictions at bus stops\nStaff Bergman indicated that the City Council had approved the resolution to implement parking\nrestrictions at bus stops on Encinal Ave. and Central Ave., and that this would take care of\nimplementing parking restrictions at most of the remaining bus stops. He indicated that\nincluding these 10 stops, there are about 15-16 stops that need to be addressed, out of a total of\napproximately 300 stop locations citywide.\nd.\nGrant applications\nStaff Bergman noted that three grant applications were submitted for the State's Safe Routes to\nSchool program, administered by Caltrans. They were submitted for curb extensions at the\nintersection at Grand and San Jose, and for the addition of a school crosswalk at the intersection\nof Benton and Central; for the purchase of radar speed signs on Grand Street and Central\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-01-23", "page": 7, "text": "Avenue; and for in-pavement lights at the crosswalk in front of Wood Middle School on Grand\nbetween Otis and Shoreline. Applications were also submitted to the Caltrans Community-based\nTransportation Planning Grant program for the Long-Range Transit Plan update, and to the\nTransit Technical Planning Assistance Program for the Citywide TSM/TDM program. The City\nhas also submitted an application to fund signal coordination on Webster Street.\ne.\nFuture meeting agenda items\nMeeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-01-23.pdf"}